USING STUDENT DATA TO DRIVE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY
PHYSICAL EDUCATION/ PHYSICAL ACTIVITY POLICY
Bob Rauner, Marybell Avery, Lana Peterson-Pressler Lincoln, Nebraska
Presenters
Bob Rauner, MD, MPH Director Partnership for a Healthy Lincoln
Marybell Avery, PhD Curriculum Specialist Lincoln Public Schools
Lana Peterson-Pressler, NBCT PEP Grant Facilitator Elementary Physical Education Teacher Lincoln Public Schools
Lincoln (Nebraska) Public Schools
Located in state capital and home of University of Nebraska
2nd largest public school district in Nebraska
36,902 students 38 elementary (K-5) schools 11 middle (6-8) schools 6 comprehensive high (9-12) schools
Lincoln (Nebraska) Public Schools
Ethnicity: White = 69.7% Hispanic/Latino = 11.9% Black/African American = 6.2% Two or More Races = 6.7% Asian = 4.7% American Indian/Alaska Native = 0.8% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander = 0.1%
Johns Hopkins Public Health Problem Solving Model
1. Define the Problem & Measure Its Magnitude 2. Understand the Key Determinants 3. Develop an Organized Framework for How
the Key Determinants are Related 4. Identify the Evidence-Based Interventions 5. Prioritize the Interventions 6. Find the Key Barriers to Implementation &
Evaluation 7. Develop a Communication Strategy
Elements of Successful Community Change
3 Basic Principles: A 3-Way Partnership between:
Bottom up (grass roots efforts) Top down (support from officials, leaders, policies) Outside in (best practices from the experts)
Action based on local data Community wide change in behavior is most successful if
the community sees it as in its own best interest Taken from: “Just and Lasting Change: When Communities Own Their Futures,” by Daniel Taylor-Ide and Carl Taylor, 2002, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Change is Hard!!!
“Most organizations have a big, powerful constituency for ‘what is’ but almost no constituency for ‘what could be’…. remember that those on top have made it in the current system, and they see little personal value in changing what they know
and can succeed in.”
The Power of Positive Deviancy by Pascale, Sternin & Sternin
Collecting Data in a School System
Research request procedures External vs internal research Reasons for disapproval
Time (student, teacher, staff, administrator) Timing
Confidentiality Parent permission IRB Exemption De-identification
Collecting Data in a School System
School personnel Director of evaluation Director of curriculum Curriculum specialist Health services supervisor Principals Physical education teachers School nurses and health paras
PEP Grant Importance of Data/Need for Data
Data and baseline measurements needed to justify the grant
PEP Grant creates the ability to request more data: PE becomes a priority!
Computing Services Evaluations Federal Programs Requests from/Information for School Board and policy makers, etc.
Note: LPS PEP Grant Objective (2 of 3): Increase MVPA physical activity during the school day and in before and after school programs (partnership with CLCs).
The data shows…
2009 LPS Elementary Schools Percentage Overweight & Obese
N=16,257
16.5 14.8 15.5 14.5 15.7 17.0
13.2 12.2
15.3 16.0 19.4
20.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Kind
erga
rte
n 1st
Gra
de
2nd
Gra
de
3rd
Gra
de
4th
Gra
de
5th
Gra
de
Obese Overweight
2009 Obesity Prevalence – PEP Grant vs. Non-PEP Grant Elementary Schools
11.3
9.0
13.2 12.2
14.9 16.5 16.0
17.0 18.8
21.8
26.8 26.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
Non-PEP PEP Grant
Correlation of Fitness and Weight Status, 4th-5th Grade Elementary Students
3.0% 1.7%
70.8%
39.5%
14.6%
20.2%
11.6%
38.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fit Unfit
Obese Overweight Normal Weight Underweight
*Fitness based on Fitnessgram PACER score >14 for girls or >22 for boys.
Dissemination of Data/Results
Follow school district hierarchy 1. Superintendent 2. Executive committee 3. School board 4. Principals 5. Teachers
Release to public Prior notification to all above
Permission to identify schools
Building a Case for More Data
Buy in from the School Board & Superintendent
Buy in from the Principals, Physical Education Staff & Nurses
Support from Computing Services Support from the community
2010-2011 Lincoln Public Schools Percentage of Overweight & Obese
16.3 15.6 15.7 17.1 16.4 17.3 17.5 16.7 17.5
12.4 12.7 14.4 18.3 18.5
21.0 21.3 19.8 19.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Obese Overweight
N = 24,072
Percent of 4th-8th Grade LPS Students Passing Fitness Test by Weight Status
75.7% 80.3% 64.2%
34.9%
24.3% 19.7% 35.8%
65.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Underweight Normal Weight Overweight Obese
Unfit Fit
Kids Failing Fit Test: 78/321 1,422/7,219 718/2,005 1,510/2,320
2010-2011 Obesity Prevalence – Title I vs. Non-Title I Elementary & Middle Schools
9.4 10.9 11.7
15.0 14.0 16.2
19.3 17.2
15.9 17.1
15.4
18.7
23.8 25.0
28.5 27.3 28.0 28.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Non Title 1
Title 1
16.0% 21.8% 18.5%
14.3% 18.8% 18.5% 16.6%
14.7%
26.9%
19.8%
14.6%
27.5% 23.1%
17.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
White Native American
African American
Asian Hispanic Multiple Race
All
Obese Overweight
2010-2011 LPS K-8 Students Overweight/Obese by Ethnicity
Percent of 3rd-8th Grade LPS Students Passing State Reading by Weight Status
20.1% 17.8% 22.9% 25.6%
43.3% 48.8% 49.7% 50.0%
36.7% 33.4% 27.4% 24.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Underweight Normal Weight Overweight Obese
Exceeds Meets Fails
4th-8th Grade LPS Students Passing State Reading Test - Fit vs. Unfit
15.7% 28.8%
47.1%
48.2%
37.2% 23.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fit Unfit
Exceeds Meets Fails
4th – 8th Grade LPS Students Passing State Math Test - Fit vs. Unfit
19.6% 34.2%
47.6%
49.4%
32.8%
16.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fit Unfit
Exceeds Meets Fails
Student Fitness Effect on State Math Scores
99.5
121.8
88.6
104.6
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
Free/Reduced Students
Non Free/Reduced Students
Fit Unfit
Note: Base case - 6th grade non-white female after controlling for gender, ethnicity, grade, fitness, and free/reduced lunch status.
Student Fitness Effect on State Reading Scores
102.9
125.9
95.2
113.2
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
Free/Reduced Students
Non Free/Reduced Students
Fit Unfit
Note: Base case - 6th grade non-white female after controlling for gender, ethnicity, grade, fitness, and free/reduced lunch status.
Policy Change – District Level
Physical Education Increased graduation requirement by 33% Successful PEP grant Staff Development: Instant Activity/
Increasing MVPA
Policy Change – District Level
Physical Activity Required Physical Activity Time (additional
recess) for all elementary students Limit “pull-outs” from physical education District wellness facilitator hired (student and
employee wellness) School district wellness challenge ($250,000
incentives for 5 yrs)
Program Change – School Level
Increasing quality in Physical Education and in before/after school programs Data as incentive for increased amount of
Physical Education Renewed urgency to make every PE/PA minute
“count” Do both skill competence and fitness impact
achievement in academic tests?
Policy Change - School Level
Fit vs. Unfit Student information in decision-making: Provide better information for parents/
students Utilize in IEP goal setting? Impact Principals’ decision-making? Decrease behavioral incidences?
Policy Change – Community Level
School/Community level grants: walking paths, playgrounds, school gardens, outdoor classrooms
Community support to incorporate wellness into long term school district strategic plan
Student research Community presentations to support LPS efforts Influencing state legislation
Implications
What are the new “sound bites”? Now we can say… Fit students learn better Fit students achieve better on tests Quality Physical Education helps students
achieve better on academic tests
Long Term Community Targets Obesity in Elementary/Middle School Students 2010-2011: 17.2% 2011-2012: 16.8% 2012-2013: 16.3% 2015 Target: <15% Students not Passing Aerobic Fitness Test 2010-2011: 31.6% 2011-2012: 30.0% 2012-2013: 30.2% 2015 Target: <15%
“Fit by 2015”
2012-2013 Lincoln Public Schools % Students Overweight & Obese
14.6 14.2 15.2 15.9 16.7 17.0 16.0 17.3 16.1
11.8 13.2 14.4 15.7 16.3 18.3 18.5 19.8 19.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Obese Overweight
N = 24,684
3 Views of Policy Change
1. Rational 2. Incremental 3. Garbage Can
QuesAons?